D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews

On Thursday August 1st, the review embargo is lifted for those who were sent an early copy of the new Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. In this post I intend to compile a handy list of those reviews as they arrive. If you know of a review, please let me know in the comments so that I can add it! I'll be updating this list as new reviews arrive, so do check back later to see what's been added!

---

Review List

• The official EN World review -- "Make no mistake, this is a new edition."
• ComicBook.com -- "Dungeons & Dragons has improved upon its current ruleset, but the ruleset still feels very familiar to 5E veterans."
• Comic Book Resources -- "From magic upgrades to easier character building, D&D's 2024 Player's Handbook is the upgrade players and DMs didn't know they needed."
• Wargamer.com -- "The 2024 Player’s Handbook is bigger and more beginner-friendly than ever before. It still feels and plays like D&D fifth edition, but numerous quality-of-life tweaks have made the game more approachable and its player options more powerful. Its execution disappoints in a handful of places, and it’s too early to tell how the new rules will impact encounter balance, but this is an optimistic start to the new Dungeons and Dragons era."
• RPGBOT -- "A lot has changed in the 2024 DnD 5e rules. In this horrendously long article, we’ve dug into everything that has changed in excruciating detail. There’s a lot here."

Video Reviews
Note, a couple of these videos have been redacted or taken down following copyright claims by WotC.

• 2024 PHB Rules Changes D&D 5.24 (Treantmonk's Temple)
• Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook 2024 Preview & Review | Key Takeaways and Comparisons with 2014 (Awesome Black)
• 10 Unexpected Changes in the D&D 5E 2024 Player's Handbook (This Effin' GM Games)
• Every Class and Subclass Change for 2024 (d4: Deep Dive)
• D&D Player's Handbook 2024 Winners & Losers! (The Character Sheet on ComicBook.com)
• 2024 Player's Handbook First Look Review (Dungeon Dudes)
• The 2024 Player's Handbook: Full Spoilers Review (DnD Shorts)
• Full Early Review! D&D 2024 Player's Handbook (JoeFudge)
• First Look at the 2024 Player's Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons (GameMasters)
• 2024 PHB Flip through (Jorphdan) [taken down]
• D&D New Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Project Sigil Info (maturemindedgamers)
• 2024 Player's Handbook: Questions Answered! (Alphastream)
• D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Walkthrough (Sly Flourish) [redacted]

---

Release timeline (i.e. when you can get it!)

• August 1st: Reviewers. Some reviewers have copies already, with their embargo lifting August 1st.
• August 1st-4th: Gen Con. There will be 3,000 copies for sale at Gen Con.
• September 3rd: US/Canada Hobby Stores. US/Canada hobby stores get it September 3rd.
• September 3rd: DDB 'Master' Pre-orders. Also on this date, D&D Beyond 'Master Subscribers' get the digital version.
• September 10th: DDB 'Hero' Pre-orders. On this date, D&D Beyond 'Hero Subscribers' get the digital version.
• September 17th: General Release. For the rest of us, the street date is September 17th.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is the best argument that I've seen for the other side, though I would put forth that the kind of player you appear to me to be describing is not the average player, but a specific type that we see a lot around here, but is not as common "in the wild".

Maybe I just have a different perspective? I play with dozens of people over varying experience levels, often teaching new players to play. While I DO also play with a core group of friends that have been together for 15 years, none of those are tactically minded or power gamers. In 30 years, I've taught nearly a thousand people how to play D&D.

I know what "average" is.

You often only need one tactically minded player to prove the point, if their playstyle is leading to mechanically definable increased success. The rest of the team might just start wondering why they're not doing as well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You often only need one tactically minded player to prove the point, if their playstyle is leading to mechanically definable increased success. The rest of the team might just start wondering why they're not doing as well.

I don’t think there is any noticeable increase in success. If the players are smarter, the monsters get smarter too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think there is any noticeable increase in success. If the players are smarter, the monsters get smarter too.

Providing the DM can or wants to keep up in that way, yes.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you are teaching them, I suspect that has an effect on what kind of player they turn out to be.

While that's true, the only thing I teach that I feel would "homogenize" them is to "Play Nice With Others". Which means to remember that everyone deserves to be heard, to get a turn, to not be overshadowed, and to keep things moving so people don't get bored.

I don't enforce a playstyle. I have people who like combat and people who like roleplaying, etc, and I try to juggle them. The only kind of player that I probably naturally weed out (I've never kicked anyone out, but I've had people voluntarily leave) is people that don't want to "Play Nice With Others" - I don't think that Tacticians and Power Gamers necessarily fall into that camp, though probably sometimes.

You often only need one tactically minded player to prove the point, if their playstyle is leading to mechanically definable increased success. The rest of the team might just start wondering why they're not doing as well.

Oh, I definitely have some players who are more tactially minded than others. They just don't slow the game down any, because they generally also understand their characters better and take their turns quicker.

 

[MarkB]

What is the point of arguing whether or not combat is going to take longer? None of us are going to know for sure until we play it for ourselves, and then only after a good few months getting the hang of the new rules.

 

[Azzy]

What is the point of arguing whether or not combat is going to take longer? None of us are going to know for sure until we play it for ourselves, and then only after a good few months getting the hang of the new rules.

Well, one person in this thread has played with weapon master since the playtest that added them. However, people who have not played with weapon mastery are arguing with him.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What are you talking about? Of course I understand what average is.

The rest of your post continues to suggest otherwise lol. I don't know how to help you. What you're posting is bizarre.

I've played scores of sessions with playtest characters with players of all levels of experience and I've never noticed an appreciable change to combat length. I don't see why the published material would change that.

So at this point it seems the simplest and most plausible explanation is that you are not able to notice changes to combat length, perhaps because DMing keeps you too busy to do so, given you say you've never noticed anything in any of the playtest. It's just wild that you don't see how this totally undermines your "I SEE ALL I KNOW ALL" appeal to authority. The knockdown saves alone from that WM would be noticeable to me.

 

[Demetrios1453]

The rest of your post continues to suggest otherwise lol. I don't know how to help you. What you're posting is bizarre.


So at this point it seems the simplest and most plausible explanation is that you are not able to notice changes to combat length, perhaps because DMing keeps you too busy to do so, given you say you've never noticed anything in any of the playtest. It's just wild that you don't see how this totally undermines your "I SEE ALL I KNOW ALL" appeal to authority. The knockdown saves alone from that WM would be noticeable to me.

The simplest explanation is that, he, as someone who has actually played, is, by far a better authority than anyone, like you, who is just theorizing without any actual play experience. I mean, what material proof do you have to contradict him? It's the basic scientific method! Theorize, then experiment to prove the theory. You've only theorized; he's experimented. Come back after you've experimented as well before you try and say his results were wrong.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's just wild that you don't see how this totally undermines your "I SEE ALL I KNOW ALL" appeal to authority.

Jeez. Talk about an uncharitable assumption.

No, I was not trying to brag. I was trying to illustrate that my opinion wasn't based on a hunch or even on one table's experience. Heck, my opinion isn't even based on just my own experience, but also everyone I've seen post on the subject here and elsewhere. (@Clint_L for example among others).

Anyone who has actually played that I have read (or experienced) has not found it to be notably different from 2014 5e. I have yet to see someone say "I played and it was slower."

If you don't like 2014 5e, you probably won't like it.

But the assertion that it is definitely, surely, and factually slower on average strikes me as unlikely. That is all.

(Oh, as another point - I don't DM every game that I am involved with).

 

[Chaosmancer]

The knockdown saves alone from that WM would be noticeable to me.

Would be noticeable?

Or was noticeable when you played a full adventure using Weapon Mastery?

Because one of those claims is a lot stronger than the other, and it isn't "I would totally notice that if it ever happened."